COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA

PDF · subscribers
ITA/166/2016HC DelhiDLHC01600915201501 March 2016Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court found the explanation for the delay unacceptable, stating that the change in filing procedure could not justify such a prolonged delay. The court emphasized the department's responsibility to monitor its filings.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax filed an appeal before the High Court with an inordinate delay of 1388 days. The department cited practice directions regarding soft copies of paperbooks as the reason for the delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the inordinate delay of 1388 days in re-filing the appeal by the Income Tax Department is justifiable. The court also considered the department's internal follow-up mechanisms for appeals.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA 166/2016 Page 1 of 2

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 5. +

ITA 166/2016

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

..... Appellant Through: Mr P. Roy Chaudhuri, Senior Standing Counsel with Ms Lakshmi Gurung, Junior Standing Counsel.

versus

AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA

..... Respondent

Through: Mr Pranjal Srivastava, Advocate.

CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

O R D E R

01.03.2016 CM No.6939/2016 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2.

The application stands disposed of.

CM No.6938/2016 (for condonation of delay of 1388 days in re-filing the appeal) & ITA 166/2016

3.

There is an inordinate delay of 1388 days in re-filing the appeal.

4.

The Court finds that the standard excuse that the department is putting forth in all such applications for condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal is regarding the practice directions issued by the Court pertaining to filing of soft copies of the paperbooks in tax matters.

ITA 166/2016 Page 2 of 2

5.

As regards this ground, sufficient advance notice had been given to the litigants and Advocates about the filing of soft copies of the paperbooks. Further, the Registry of the Court had made appropriate arrangements for scanning services at the filing counters to facilitate the making of soft copies so that the inconvenience if any caused to the Advocates and the litigants is minimised. In any event the change could not have entailed a delay of more than three and a half years.

6.

It is not possible to accept that no one followed up on the filing of appeals and allowed a period of more than three and a half years to elapse before the appeal could be re-filed. The Department has a cell in the High Court which is under the supervision of a Deputy CIT. He ought to be keeping track of the filing of appeals and should be able to know if any appeal entrusted to the panel counsel for filing has not been listed even once before the Court for a long time.

7.

The application bearing CM No.6938/2016 for condonation of the delay of 1388 days in re-filing the appeal is dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

S. MURALIDHAR, J

VIBHU BAKHRU, J MARCH 01, 2016 MK

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →